Perfectly reasonable. I would query the statement "their current scientific appraisal" since most people in that category seem to be getting a corrupted or biassed message in the name of science that is spoon fed to them by the media at the moment. There is a definite political stance being taken with almost religious zeal, and this is what I find disturbing.Do you think it's reasonable to distinguish between a) vegans who have made their choice for emotional reasons (e.g. 'meat is murder') so might be biased against evidence showing harms of veganism and b) vegans who made their choice based on their current scientific appraisal of the benefits of veganism?
I was aware that scientists are working on replacements for artificial fertilisers but I wasn't aware that governments are trying to phase out their use - could you provide a link? Thanks.fertilizer from the petrochemical industry, a finite source and one governments are trying to phase out due to its harm to the environment and water.
Yes, a lot of science reporting doesn't make it easy for a layperson to get a balanced picture and I take your point about religious zeal. I was, however, talking about scientists who are working in the field and have a much better understanding than any layperson or media guru. If they change their behaviour as a result of their understanding, it would then be wrong to accuse them of bias because they've changed their behaviour.Perfectly reasonable. I would query the statement "their current scientific appraisal" since most people in that category seem to be getting a corrupted or biassed message in the name of science that is spoon fed to them by the media at the moment. There is a definite political stance being taken with almost religious zeal, and this is what I find disturbing.
use of oil is what the governments are trying to phase out, in all its applications. Its deemed a fossil fuel. My point is that they have no alternative as far as i know, so they are swapping one problem - animals, for another - increased need for petrochemical fertilizers.I was aware that scientists are working on replacements for artificial fertilisers but I wasn't aware that governments are trying to phase out their use - could you provide a link? Thanks.
Oddly sometimes not but thy sometimes insist on feeding them vegan diets which of course is animal cruelty.I'd like to hear that argument between a vegan and a blind person who manages to stay independant with his assistance dog or the woman with cerebral palsy who can choose whether to have more hours with human carers or not depending on whether she is lucky enough to get an assistance dog or the person with severe epilepsy.... the list goes on. I'm guessing that they are against having pets at all, too.
What about the and where we can't grow stuff but animals can graze quite comfortably.. that would be out of food production so overall productivity would fall? Moors, steep slopes rocky land... grass grows almost everywhere (apart obviously from extremes of temperature) so can be used as animal food.Theoretically, the land used to grow crops to feed animals could be used to grow crops to feed people. What people are willing to do is a completely separate question. I don't see why monocultures, decimated wildlife and artificial fertiliser would be any more of a problem than they are at present.
Oddly sometimes not but thy sometimes insist on feeding them vegan diets which of course is animal cruelty.
I think there are alternatives available but not as cheap to produce or as efficient, The so called chemical fertilizers are indeed derived from the distillate from the refactory process used to refine crude into its constituent parts. These will become less attractive as the oil reserves run out.I was aware that scientists are working on replacements for artificial fertilisers but I wasn't aware that governments are trying to phase out their use - could you provide a link? Thanks.
This is an interview with the lead author on that particular article
http://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/interviews/what-if-we-all-turned-vegan-2050
it contains such gems as this
" If the world adopted a vegan diet in the year 2050, in that single year it could cut greenhouse gas emissions by two thirds, save $1.5trillion in climate damages and healthcare-related expenditure, and reduce global mortality by 10 per cent, which means eight fewer million deaths from chronic diseases."
Greenhouse gas emissions reduced by 2/3? interestingly he doesn't seem to say how.. all those non existent cow farts I guess...
Meat production is responsible for the greatest portion of food-related greenhouse gas emissions, similar in scale to that of transport. Most of those emissions are caused by the methane that cows produce and by the industrial growth of animal feed, which drives encroachment of agricultural land into formerly forested areas.
If the plan is to use more land to grow more crops they had better be quick before it all disappears under new housing.
Or under the rising sea levels.If the plan is to use more land to grow more crops they had better be quick before it all disappears under new housing.
They do.... Our council gave the go ahead to build on land next to the river that gets flooded each year, and a local estate agent was offering a free wetsuit for every applicant. Every home was sold, and they are now expanding it massively to cope with demand. There are no shops or facilities, but the estate will soon house nearly 15000 people. Most roads on the estate are one way only, so makes it difficult to visit. Apparently that deters boy racers, but in fact it encourages them more because they stand less chance of meeting themselves coming the other way. This large estate has only 2 entrance/exit junction onto the same main road to the motorway so all traffic ends up at the same place, and there is gridlock during term time. Again this is to deter through traffic and rat runs.That's OK, they can build the houses on flood plains
They do.... Our council gave the go ahead to build on land next to the river that gets flooded each year, and a local estate agent was offering a free wetsuit for every applicant. Every home was sold, and they are now expanding it massively to cope with demand. There are no shops or facilities, but the estate will soon house nearly 15000 people. Most roads on the estate are one way only, so makes it difficult to visit. Apparently that deters boy racers, but in fact it encourages them more because they stand less chance of meeting themselves coming the other way. This large estate has only 2 entrance/exit junction onto the same main road to the motorway so all traffic ends up at the same place, and there is gridlock during term time. Again this is to deter through traffic and rat runs.
They do.... Our council gave the go ahead to build on land next to the river that gets flooded each year, and a local estate agent was offering a free wetsuit for every applicant. Every home was sold, and they are now expanding it massively to cope with demand. There are no shops or facilities, but the estate will soon house nearly 15000 people. Most roads on the estate are one way only, so makes it difficult to visit. Apparently that deters boy racers, but in fact it encourages them more because they stand less chance of meeting themselves coming the other way. This large estate has only 2 entrance/exit junction onto the same main road to the motorway so all traffic ends up at the same place, and there is gridlock during term time. Again this is to deter through traffic and rat runs.
Edit to add: the land they used belonged to a cattle farmer who used a traction engine to do his work. It was a lovely sight to see,
Perhaps they should tax fat but not lean meat [red or otherwise] which I eat as something that doesn't put my glucose levels up.Just been reading the paper and researchers from Oxford University are suggesting putting a tax on red meat and bacon. This will include mincemeat, burgers, sausages also steak, lamb, pork. Sausages and bacon and other processed food, a whopping 79% on sausages, bacon and other processed foods. Red meat, in general, a 14% tax on. The researchers are saying that it will save lives as these products cause Heart Disease, Diabetes and Cancer. This was also talked about on LBC this morning. If this turns out that the Government does this, our meat will be very expensive. Nanny state or what?
Perhaps they should tax fat but not lean meat [red or otherwise] which I eat as something that doesn't put my glucose levels up.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?